François Legault has this annoying habit of taking intellectual shortcuts that distort reality to his liking, as he does almost daily in the third link file.
To justify his decision to limit the number of immigrants to 50,000 per year when the Trudeau government plans to welcome up to 450,000 for all of Canada, the head of the CAQ pointed to the advantages of small countries such as Switzerland and the Scandinavian States.
No one doubts their extraordinary success in a multitude of areas where a larger population can complicate matters. It is clear that height is in no way a guarantee of wealth or quality of life.
Mr. Legault knows very well, however, that he is comparing apples and oranges when he draws a parallel between states that hold all the attributes of sovereignty and a simple province whose powers are limited, particularly in terms of immigration. That their German neighbor opens the floodgates of immigration in no way prevents Switzerland or Denmark from setting their own rules without causing any demographic or political imbalance at home.
It goes without saying that an explosion in the number of immigrants to English Canada, when Quebec chooses to limit it, can only weaken its weight within the federation and make its ability to assert its difference even more difficult. .
And following the Canadian movement, which would require Quebec to welcome 100,000 immigrants a year, would compromise even more surely its French character, whose fragility the figures of the last census have once again demonstrated.
Even in a sovereign state, the ability to integrate newcomers has its limits. Last April, the Swedish Prime Minister, Magdalena Andersson, declared that her country “has failed to integrate the many immigrants it has received over the past two decades, which has given rise to parallel societies and gang violence”.
Coming from the Social Democratic Party, Mme Andersson is not, however, a right-wing politician adhering to the “great replacement” conspiracy theory. Sweden was very generous – perhaps too generous – during the migration crisis of 2015, being the European country to welcome the highest number of migrants per inhabitant. “We are going to have to review our previous truths and make difficult decisions,” noted the Prime Minister.
Quebec is obviously not alone in trying to reconcile the desire to preserve its identity with the need to meet the needs of the labor market. At
Denmark, also led by a Social Democrat Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, a very restrictive migration policy results in a very low unemployment rate and a crying lack of manpower.
If it is difficult for a sovereign State to find the right balance, it becomes practically impossible for the government which does not have all the elements to solve the equation.
There is something surreal in the debate on immigration thresholds to which this election campaign is giving rise. Each party seems to be pulling a number out of its hat, although it has no power over the selection of half of those it intends to welcome and is unable to assess the capacity for integration of Quebec society. .
Beyond the “civilizational compatibility” evoked by the Conservative Party of Quebec, it goes without saying that a greater number of people demand more housing, child care spaces, health workers, teachers, etc. . This precisely requires having all the necessary tools.
The repatriation of powers in matters of immigration is the only demand common to the five parties, whether they are federalists or sovereignists. But Ottawa’s refusal remains as categorical as ever.
Jean Charest had hoped that Stephen Harper would show openness. François Legault had bet without really believing it on Andrew Scheer, then on Erin O’Toole. If he becomes prime minister, Éric Duhaime is determined to convince Pierre Poilievre and his Conservative counterparts in English Canada. This remains very hypothetical, to say the least.
Passing through the editorial table of the To have toon Tuesday, the Conservative leader proposed a joint approach by all the parties represented in the National Assembly, which already seems more plausible, without however offering the slightest guarantee of success.
Since the start of the campaign, Mr. Legault has not talked about the great national conversation on immigration that he mentioned last spring without specifying its form, but something will have to be done. If this exercise could simply separate apples and oranges, that would already be something.